The George 1 North Stafford 0

It comes as no shock that out of 140 hotel booking websites (or the middlemen) of one hundred world cities, hotels in London have been voted the worst.To expand on these findings it would be interesting to find out which hotel would be graded the worst nationally, and locally, and if our own North Stafford Hotel in Stoke (Britannia Hotels) or the George Hotel in Burslem (obscure who owns it) would be up there with London.The 88 bedroom North Stafford Hotel was originally called The Railway Hotel, which was designed in the Elizabethan & Jacobean style by H. A. Hunt of Parliament Street, London. Initially, the hotel was constructed as an integral part of the building of Stoke Station.A Double Room costs approximately £46 in February and £63 in June per night and there is little provision for the single traveller (they may have to pay for a double room).It is hit and miss whether the breakfast is included in the price which is dependent on the time of booking and how much paid.The North Stafford does offer a 'lunch buffet' for £5 which does not suit the discerning palate.Reviewers declared on a popular website the pluses and the minuses of staying at the North Stafford Hotel:"Convenient location for train station and city centre, with good bus links. Staff were friendly and helpful.""Pillow was black, sheets were filthy. Towel had a black stain on it, was just awful, and I will never be coming back or recommending any of my friends, family or colleagues."On the other hand, the George Hotel in Burslem was once known as the George & Dragon and featured in the novels by Arnold Bennett.What's more, the George was once a public house and was attacked and ransacked during the infamous "Chartist Riots" in 1842. It was believed that rioters raided the cellar for alcohol which fuelled the uprising.The George Hotel offers rooms for £49 in February and £65 in June. The George also offers a set breakfast of £6.95.The Single Status Sting (SSS) is also applicable where the lone traveller hardly gets a discount.Reviewers of the George (on a popular hotel website) declared the pluses and the minuses:"Enjoyed the meal in restaurant. Had a family get together and all the meals were of good standard. Hot and plentiful, great value for money; made our evening.""The town of Burslem is a little depressed, and a lot of people drinking on the street".

15 comments

Backdoored. There has always been a small minority on here who criticise Mr Raftery at every opportunity. They also attack his personal skills (his English his bad he is a rubbish journalist etc). They seem to resent his take on local matters and the fact he holds no fear for the establishment like they do. Ex serviceman is one of the these people and he does not post an article himself because he does not have the confidence or the ability to do so. I enjoy Mr Raftery's articles he can turn national issues into local issues and educates us when doing so. Some of his pieces can be cutting edge. I think he has journalistic skills but mainly he is a writer. That is what that small minded minority on here resent.

Quote: "Incidentally one of the things I , and you , am entitled to because of blokes like me who served our country is the right to freedom of speech which includes criticising what we consider to be rubbish , which you seem to do a lot.;" -Exserviceman.
Two final things mate; it was the manner of your criticism that prompted me to suggest you try your hand at 'doing a piece' (in the first place). Secondly, you are not the only one who posts on here to have 'done their bit for 'the' country, or 'our' country if you prefer -by serving in the armed forces.
And those who have, don't have any more right to free speech than those who haven't -in my opinion anyway. Not unless we have a military dictatorship; then it's claimed 'as of right'.

by Exserviceman
"Backdoored
".. as for the QPR thing , I have absolutely no interest in what a London football club does'. -Unquote.
Even though it 'directly relates to the armed forces?
Excerviceman: "The reason I don't write an article is because , unlike Kevin Rafferty, I don't consider myself to be a journalist" -unquote.
Does he consider himself to be a journalist? One doesn't have to be a 'journalist' to write an article. Isn't he just someone who likes to write, giving his views on something he feels strongly about. An 'essayist'.
As an ex-serviceman yourself, I would have been interested in your reaction to the QPR offer. It doesn't have to be a 'ramble'. Just thought it may have reflected on what other 'ex-servicemen' thought about it. The lads themselves seem delighted -judging by the photo' and the fact that they're going to the game.

Backdoored
The reason I don't write an article is because , unlike Kevin Rafferty, I don't consider myself to be a journalist and as for the QPR thing , I have absolutely no interest in what a London football club does . My comments on things military are made from a position of having spent 15 years in the army and therefore having knowledge of the subject. Incidentally one of the things I , and you , am entitled to because of blokes like me who served our country is the right to freedom of speech which includes criticising what we consider to be rubbish , which you seem to do a lot.;

Oops! ...(in this rarefied atmosphere) I must correct my poor grammar displayed here - (quote)- '...would not allow your harsh criticism TO affect....
Having been brought up at 'street-level' in darkest Cobridge a very long time ago -'demotic pottereese' -where the word 'to' doesn't exist, is hard to shake off -especially when in the 'heat of the debate' -Yes, I know, that's why I should spend time proof-reading my posts, before hitting the 'submit' button.
Must try harder.... in respecting the reader.
NB 'examples of pottereese' and the 'non-existent' word "to":-
'I'm going Hanley'. 'Are you going the pictures?' 'Did you go down Stoke on Satdee?' (meaning to watch the match). 'No', came the sardonic reply, 'But I went up Hanley on Monday'.

by Sparkmeister
"Why publish this? The English is poor from the start, and the subject matter little more than a summary of web reviews of two rather obscure hotels. Cringeworthy." -Unquote.
And again, as you don't condemn the 'facility' outright, and seeing how able you are yourself in the use of English -I look forward to a 'non-cringeworthy' article from you. I bet there's something you'd like to get off your chest, that rarely comes up in the pages of the Sentinel.
Here's a good opportunity for you; and I'm sure Kevin would not allow your harsh criticism affect his judgement when commenting on your piece.

I hope I'm right in assuming that the 'red arrow response' I got for my suggestion to 'ex-serviceman' -that he consider doing the article suggested, was from him, and as far as he was willing, or able, to go.

Those running our hotels, our councils, large private enterprises etc have not done a good enough job over the years. That is one of the reasons Stoke on Trent has a terrible reputation. There are people that can do better and must do better. Tourism and how to treat visitors is important to any area.

by Exserviceman
"A completely pointless article that begins by comparing websites then just rambles." -Unquote.
Do one about the Armed Forces. Perhaps giving your views on the QPR 'acknowledgemtnt' -in 'saluting the troops' by giving them free tickets for the game against Norwich next weekend.
http://tinyurl.com/a7sxv2t